Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
OCT 4 2000
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
No. 99-6380
(D.C. No. 99-CR-79-M)
(W.D. Okla.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
-2-
647 (10th Cir. 1992). We give due deference to the application of the guidelines
to the facts. See United States v. Vaziri , 164 F.3d 556, 568 (10th Cir. 1999).
Section 2D1.1(b)(1) provides for a two-level increase in the base offense
level for certain drug-related crimes [i]f a dangerous weapon (including
a firearm) was possessed . . . . The government has the initial burden of proving
possession by a preponderance of the evidence.
See United
States v. Payne , 81 F.3d 759, 762 (8th Cir. 1996) (It is not necessary that an
individual be observed using the weapon, and either actual or constructive
possession is sufficient,
dominion, or control either over the firearm or the premises on which it is found.
(internal quote omitted)). Once the government meets this initial burden, the
burden shifts to the defendant to prove that it is clearly improbable that the
weapons were connected to the offense.
It is undisputed that Mr. Hodges owned the property where the firearms
were discovered. Moreover, the firearms were found in close proximity to the
rooms used to grow and process the marijuana. Accordingly, we find no error in
the district courts imposition of the enhancement.
Mr. Hodges also contends that the district court erred in concluding that,
because it had determined that he was subject to the enhancement under
2D1.1(b)(1), the issue of whether he may receive the benefit of the safety-valve
provisions found in 5C1.2 was moot. This argument is foreclosed by
United
States v. Hallum , 103 F.3d 87, 89 (10th Cir. 1996), a case this panel cannot
overrule. See United States v. Foster , 104 F.3d 1228, 1229 (10th Cir. 1997).
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma is AFFIRMED .
Entered for the Court
John C. Porfilio
Circuit Judge
-4-